Why Do Otherwise Decent People Support Trump?

Let’s do a little time travel experiment.

The year is 2003. George W. Bush is president; the space shuttle, Columbia, explodes on its return to earth, killing all seven astronauts on board; Finding Nemo is the biggest film of the year; and you are twenty years younger.

Or maybe we should go back to 2013. The United States has elected the first black president in its history; terrorists set off a bomb at the Boston Marathon, killing three people and injuring nearly 300; Macklemore has two of the five biggest songs of the year; and you are ten years younger.

Now, imagine that in 2003 or 2013, someone were to tell you that in 2023—just ten or twenty years in the future—roughly half of the country would support a man for president who:

  • Had been divorced three times;
  • Had declared bankruptcy five times;
  • Was prohibited from owning or serving on the board of a charitable foundation in the State of New York because he had misused funds from his own foundation;
  • Had admitted to committing sexual assault;
  • Had been impeached twice while serving as president, once for trying to extort the leader of a friendly nation and once for inciting an insurrection;
  • Had refused to accept the results of an election, and continues to spread the Big Lie that, due to voter fraud, the election was stolen from him.
  • Had been indicted in four different jurisdictions for a total of 91 felony charges;
  • Had called for the execution of a former head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the imprisonment, without evidence of wrongdoing, of his political opponents;
  • Has promised that if he is elected again to the presidency, he will institute an authoritarian form of government that includes jailing political opponents and those not sufficiently loyal to him; will fire career government employees, replacing them with cronies loyal only to him, not the nation; will remove the United States from NATO, the most successful mutual support alliance organization in history; and will weaponize the government to benefit his friends and punish his enemies.

If you had been given this information in 2003 or 2013, would you have believed it?

If you’ve followed this blog for the past few years, you know that I have struggled to understand how anyone, let alone half the nation, could support Donald Trump, a man his own former Chief of Staff (and retired U.S. Marine Corp General) called the most flawed man he had ever met. A Trump-supporting friend once told me in 2020 that the reason he and other people support Trump is because the former President’s policy preferences matched their own. I couldn’t understand it in 2020, considering everything we knew about Trump at the time, and I certainly can’t understand it now.

Of course, I’m not the only one who struggles to understand the appeal of Donald Trump. Below, I’ve included perspectives from three different people, including:

  • A British writer who doesn’t understand how so many Americans have been duped by Trump;
  • A political pundit and business owner from Arizona who thinks that calling Trump supporters “stupid” is kinder than saying what those people might actually be: and
  • A small church minister in New York who recounts what it was like to have his congregants pervert Biblical teachings to justify supporting Trump.

They, like me, are confused about the sway Donald Trump continues to have over the Republican Party, and how he has transformed the GOP into an anti-democratic, pro-authoritarian political organization.

I will say, I don’t mind people calling Trump names. I do it myself. But I have to admit that it bothers me to see his supporters—at least some of his supporters—called stupid or ignorant. Some of these people, at least some of the ones I know, are not stupid. I can’t fully explain their attraction to such a cartoonish buffoon, but the Trump supporters I know are decent people who care about their families, communities, states, and the nation. I don’t think they personally wish ill on anyone. Yet, they support a man for the highest office in the land who absolutely wishes ill on many Americans and wants to end the democracy that has served us so well. In many cases, these people self-identify as Jesus-following Christians, yet they support a man who is as un-Christ-like as any man to ever hold the presidency. I just don’t get it.

The first article was written by Nate White and was originally published in the London Daily. White is a British writer and his article explains why Brits dislike Trump. It’s humorous, but everything White says is factual.

The next article originated as a Twitter thread written by Ryan Shead, a political pundit and business owner from Arizona. In his thread, Shead sets out to answer the question, why do liberals think Trump supporters are stupid? As I said, it bothers me to hear Trump supporters referred to as stupid, but there’s no arguing with the examples Shead provides. There’s just no explaining why otherwise smart, decent people approve of the things Trump says and does.

The final article also originated as a Twitter thread written by Rev. Sean Muldowney, a small church pastor who speaks to the changes he saw in his congregation that paralleled Trump’s political rise. Rev. Muldowney’s words really struck me because he describes exactly what I witnessed: otherwise decent people sucked in by a con artist posing as a Christian. Muldowney’s Twitter thread is a disturbing, but enlightening read.

Why Do British People Not Like Donald Trump?

(Lightly edited for clarity)

A few things spring to mind. Trump lacks certain qualities which the British traditionally esteem. For instance, he has no class, no charm, no coolness, no credibility, no compassion, no wit, no warmth, no wisdom, no subtlety, no sensitivity, no self-awareness, no humility, no honour and no grace – all qualities, funnily enough, with which his predecessor Mr. Obama was generously blessed. So for us, the stark contrast does rather throw Trump’s limitations into embarrassingly sharp relief.

Plus, we like a laugh. And while Trump may be laughable, he has never once said anything wry, witty or even faintly amusing – not once, ever. I don’t say that rhetorically, I mean it quite literally: not once, not ever. And that fact is particularly disturbing to the British sensibility – for us, to lack humour is almost inhuman. But with Trump, it’s a fact. He doesn’t even seem to understand what a joke is – his idea of a joke is a crass comment, an illiterate insult, a casual act of cruelty.

Trump is a troll. And like all trolls, he is never funny and he never laughs; he only crows or jeers. And scarily, he doesn’t just talk in crude, witless insults – he actually thinks in them. His mind is a simple bot-like algorithm of petty prejudices and knee-jerk nastiness.

There is never any under-layer of irony, complexity, nuance or depth. It’s all surface. Some Americans might see this as refreshingly upfront. Well, we don’t. We see it as having no inner world, no soul. And in Britain we traditionally side with David, not Goliath. All our heroes are plucky underdogs: Robin Hood, Dick Whittington, Oliver Twist. Trump is neither plucky, nor an underdog. He is the exact opposite of that. He’s not even a spoiled rich-boy, or a greedy fat-cat. He’s more a fat white slug. A Jabba the Hutt of privilege.

And worse, he is that most unforgivable of all things to the British: a bully. That is, except when he is among bullies; then he suddenly transforms into a sniveling sidekick instead. There are unspoken rules to this stuff – the Queensberry rules of basic decency – and he breaks them all. He punches downwards – which a gentleman should, would, could never do – and every blow he aims is below the belt. He particularly likes to kick the vulnerable or voiceless – and he kicks them when they are down.

So the fact that a significant minority – perhaps a third – of Americans look at what he does, listens to what he says, and then think ‘Yeah, he seems like my kind of guy’ is a matter of some confusion and no little distress to British people, given that:

  • Americans are supposed to be nicer than us, and mostly are.
  • You don’t need a particularly keen eye for detail to spot a few flaws in the man.

This last point is what especially confuses and dismays British people, and many other people too; his faults seem pretty bloody hard to miss. After all, it’s impossible to read a single tweet, or hear him speak a sentence or two, without staring deep into the abyss. He turns being artless into an art form; he is a Picasso of pettiness; a Shakespeare of shit. His faults are fractal: even his flaws have flaws, and so on ad infinitum. God knows there have always been stupid people in the world, and plenty of nasty people too. But rarely has stupidity been so nasty, or nastiness so stupid. He makes Nixon look trustworthy and George W look smart. In fact, if Frankenstein decided to make a monster assembled entirely from human flaws – he would make a Trump.

And a remorseful Doctor Frankenstein would clutch out big clumpfuls of hair and scream in anguish: ‘My God… what… have… I… created?’ If being a twat was a TV show, Trump would be the boxed set.

— Nate White

Twitter Thread from Ryan Shead

(Lightly edited for clarity):

THIS WAS ON A FRIEND’S PAGE: An anguished question from a Trump supporter: ‘Why do liberals think Trump supporters are stupid?’

THE SERIOUS ANSWER: Here’s what the majority of anti-Trump voters honestly feel about Trump supporters en masse:

That when you saw a man who had owned a fraudulent University, intent on scamming poor people, you thought “Fine.”

That when you saw a man who had made it his business practice to stiff his creditors, you said, “Okay.”

That when you heard him proudly brag about his own history of sexual abuse, you said, “No problem.”

That when he made up stories about seeing Muslim-Americans in the thousands cheering the destruction of the World Trade Center, you said, “Not an issue.”

That when you saw him brag that he could shoot a man on Fifth Avenue and you wouldn’t care, you exclaimed, “He sure knows me.”

That when you saw him mock the disabled, you thought it was the funniest thing you ever saw.

That when you heard him brag that he doesn’t read books, you said, “Well, who has time?”

That when the Central Park Five were compensated as innocent men convicted of a crime they didn’t commit, and he angrily said that they should still be in prison, you said, “That makes sense.”

That when you heard him tell his supporters to beat up protesters and that he would hire attorneys, you thought, “Yes!”

That when you heard him tell one rally to confiscate a man’s coat before throwing him out into the freezing cold, you said, “What a great guy!”

That you have watched the parade of neo-Nazis and white supremacists with whom he curries favor, while refusing to condemn outright Nazis, and you have said, “Thumbs up!”

That you hear him unable to talk to foreign dignitaries without insulting their countries and demanding that they praise his electoral win, you said, “That’s the way I want my President to be.”

That you have watched him remove expertise from all layers of government in favor of people who make money off of eliminating protections in the industries they’re supposed to be regulating and you have said, “What a genius!”

That you have heard him continue to profit from his businesses, in part by leveraging his position as President, to the point of overcharging the Secret Service for space in the properties he owns, and you have said, “That’s smart!”

That you have heard him say that it was difficult to help Puerto Rico because it was in the middle of water and you have said, “That makes sense.”

That you have seen him start fights with every country from Canada to New Zealand while praising Russia and quote, “falling in love” with the dictator of North Korea, and you have said, “That’s statesmanship!”

That Trump separated children from their families and put them in cages, managed to lose track of 1500 kids, has opened a tent city incarceration camp in the desert in Texas – he explains that they’re just “animals” – and you say, “Well, OK then.”

That you have witnessed all the corruption and lacking moral character, rudeness and contempt for you, the working American voter, and you still show up grinning and wearing your MAGA hats and threatening to beat up anybody who says otherwise.

That when Trump scammed $122 million from everyday Americans for his 2020 campaign — folks who were literally on Hospice waiting to pass  — you said, “Trump 2024.”

That when Trump added $7.8 trillion to the national debt after promising to lower it, you said, “he just needs another four years”

That when the trade deficit increased by 40% under Trump, you said, “it would be worse under the Democrats”

That when Trump had the worst jobs record since President Hoover, you said, “four more years.”

That when Trump said he would be too busy working for the American people to go golfing while doing so for a year of his presidency on his own properties, you said, “that’s just smart business.”

That when Trump said everyone would have better and cheaper healthcare once he was elected while 2.3 million more people become uninsured, you said, “the polling is wrong.”

That after Trump said “It’s 15 people and pretty soon it will be down close to zero” Covid cases in the United States, and 400,000 Americans died from it, you said, “who could have predicted?”

That when we found out Trump expressed support for hanging VP Mike Pence during the January 6th Capitol riot, you thought, “He kinda had it coming”

That when Trump said he’s ‘financially supporting’ January 6 defendants and will look ‘very favorably’ about full pardons if he wins the 2024 election, you said, “That’s a real leader”

That when the January 6th Committee presented video testimony from ex-attorney general William Barr saying the former president’s claims of election fraud were ‘bogus’, ‘idiotic’ and ‘bullshit’, you thought, “The libs are just trying to take Trump down.”

That when you heard that Rudy Giuliani said “We have lots of theories, we just don’t have the evidence,” to support the claims of election fraud, you said, ‘Rusty Bowers is a traitor’

What you don’t get is that our succumbing to frustration, thinking of you as stupid, may very well be wrong, but it’s also…hear me…charitable.

Because if you’re NOT stupid, we must turn to other explanations, and most of them are less flattering.

— Ryan Shead

Twitter Thread from Rev. Sean Muldowney

(Lightly edited for clarity):

That politician got arrested today. I’ve been reflecting on how I’ve pastored people since late 2015.

Spoiler: lots of failure.

It’s late 2015/early 2016, preceding the presidential election and into the new presidency.

I, like others, observe a rising sentiment among the faithful Christians most immediate to me. This sentiment is a conflation of political aspirations with the will of God.

I observe some good and kind people become supportive of a wealthy celebrity bully who exploits women, minorities, migrant workers, and consumers. His sexual exploits are particularly loathsome.

I grew up in the tri-state area and read the New York newspapers almost every day of my life. I knew what this guy was about since I was 12 years old.

And now he was beginning to exploit Christians for their political support under the pretense of shared values like morality and law-and-order… values that he has not practiced one day in his public life.

Some good and kind people near me soon become somewhat obsessive and defensive over him. It is beginning to look grim. The category of “following Jesus” does not seem to apply to these conversations. Even notions of “decency” and “honor” don’t seem to apply to these conversations.

What started out as a seemingly benign “well he’s just the lesser of two evils” sentiment rapidly evolves into full-blown religious syncretism. Support for this bully is fully equated with doing the will of God.

His personal life doesn’t matter, his ethics don’t matter, his integrity doesn’t matter. Those are all washed away with a few words: “God can use anyone.”

I see through the veil. I don’t know why it’s apparent to me, but it is.

So I’m wanting to speak up about this because it has become a complete spiritual crisis. It has become idolatry. Idolatry is the very thing that is the most dangerous to our souls. No, nobody would outright claim to ‘worship’ this man. But the fawning over him and the defense of him has all the markings of uncritical spiritual devotion that could be easily exploited… and would likely lead to violent outbursts somewhere down the road (“cultish” would be a technically appropriate word to use).

As I witness these things take place — all in the name of Jesus and in the name of being pro-life — I want to speak up. Pastors push back against idolatry, right? Pastors don’t let people create a god in their own image, right? Pastors warn the people under their care about “strong delusions” (2 Thess. 2:11), right?

I want to be helpful, but also maintain credibility. Maintain a peaceable tone. Withhold judgment. Not offend. Make it far less about who one chooses to vote for and far more about the mingling of spirituality with partisanship and populism (I still believe this).

I speak up, as I can, never feeling like I hit the mark. Never feeling like it’s sufficient. Never feeling pastoral enough or gentle enough. Or bold enough or courageous enough. And I’m thinking “nobody else is seeing this as a discipleship issue. Am I wrong? Biased? Stupid? Do we just ignore this so as to not make waves and rock the church?” (That seemed to be the unspoken expectation in the church. I’m the associate pastor in this story, btw).

I have this internal crisis all while seeing some good and kind people become fully seduced by a classic strong-man bully who parrots enough god-talk to win over the historic “moral majority” crowd. I feel defeated as I see people sell their souls to a scam artist. What a shitty pastor I must be, to open scripture so often for people but not be able to help them see that they are dancing in darkness. But hey, at least they check the “fully engaged church member” boxes!

So it’s enough that I’m failing in speaking up about this AND a related “racism is bad” concern (that was a whole thing that should have been obviously ok, but wasn’t).

THEN I learn that my speaking up has caught me a label: “You’re a raging ________” (I bet you can guess).

That was definitely a first. Along with getting reported to a supervisor for my “agenda.” Along with a secret task-force investigation of my social media (though I was cleared of whatever it was that was garnering complaints).

How did I think I was fairing as a pastor, as someone meant to keep watch over people’s souls?

Failure, everywhere.

Now here we are nearing the end of 2023. I am no better a person for my attempts to speak up. I don’t claim to hold any moral high ground. My direct critique of one seductive political figure is hardly an endorsement for the other side, but that’s not how I’ve been interpreted.

I’ve been humbled. I don’t think my voice mattered and I don’t think I made a difference. I don’t think I helped anyone move out of the political haze and into the presence of Jesus. (I’m pretty sure I’m totally shutting my mouth this coming election season… or going full IDGAF, we’ll see.)

The point? It’s not actually about me or what I did or didn’t do, I’m finally realizing.

Reality is reality. What a multitude saw coming did indeed come. And it is still unfolding.

Seems like “persecution/martyrdom” is the next act in this antichrist soap opera.

But you know what? There’s still time to repent, to get off of this train to nowhere, and return to authentic faith in the true Savior. The one who willingly laid down power and embraced weakness.

The one who could have declared religious war on his enemies but instead humbled himself on a cross. The one who invites sinners to his table and empowers them to live a new and different way of life.

Otherwise… behold, your god. Behold, your idol.

As for me?  I’ve grown in security. I’ll lose my job. I’ll lose my credibility. I’m calling out syncretism and idolatry. I’m not standing for theonomy or nationalism. I’m not bowing the knee to false Christianity.

It’s about discipleship and imitating Jesus, or it isn’t.

I’m not usually tweeting/x’ing like this, so the full on vulnerability hangover from this thread is pretty well settling over me.

So, in an effort to soothe my fragile ego, I want to add a contextual note about the language I used.

I hope you caught that I purposefully described “good and kind” people who were seduced by this delusion. That wasn’t me being cute. That’s the truth. That’s who they are. That’s what made it all the more heartbreaking: to see them take on an identity that wasn’t theirs.

I was serving in a large-ish rural church. I was a first-generation Christian (at age 19) city boy who was ministering in a 200+ year old church where the generations ran up to 4 deep. I got close to farmers, truckers, sporting goods magnates, factory workers, educators, nurses, and business owners.

Side note: farmers are the most amazing people and are doing one of the most dangerous jobs. No farmer is only a farmer. A farmer is a farmer and an engineer and a mechanic and a trucker and a weatherperson. They’re on the cutting edge of technology and steeped in tradition. Farming is among the professions with the highest suicide rates. They’re at the mercy of supply and demand, government policy, the weather, and a host of other variables. All so you and I can eat the food we eat. Go thank a farmer.

So, I showed up needing to learn a whole new culture. My education included why rural communities were drawn to Trump on a *policy* level. There were some real benefits.

And also why they were drawn to Trump on an *emotional* level. They believed he really saw and valued them. That’s why NONE of my story is about “Trump voters.” I don’t ask people how they vote and don’t try to influence people how they vote.

My story is about good and kind people who fell into a trap, put their whole identity into advocating for a criminal, and called it Christianity.

I was not a martyr or a lone voice among a whole MAGA mob. I detected a subtle undercurrent of unhealthy and un-Christlike speech and posture among some people in our community. It was when I challenged that undercurrent that it felt like a rogue wave unleashed.

It wasn’t everyone. But the loud voices were VERY LOUD and the defensive posture was VERY DEFENSIVE and no amount of “here’s the bible open in front of us and can you please show me where you are drawing your perspective from?” conversations seemed to be helpful.

All this to say, I don’t want my story to contribute to “othering” people. When I would speak up, it usually had to do with hearing someone make a disparaging remark about “those people.” There is a real temptation to “other” the people who “other” in the name of decency. No.

That story was about people I cared for (and still care about). People who were swept up in a deluge. People who lost the ability to discern between true and false faith.

Please don’t read any stereotypes of any people or groups into that story.

–Rev. Sean Muldowney

Facebooktwitter

Relationships Are Good For Your Health

Last week, I posted an essay about how marriage (or any long-term, loving relationship) can increase your happiness. That essay was a bit personal, as it was prompted by my desire to be in a relationship.

As I was looking into ways that marriage leads to happiness, I came across a study conducted by Harvard Medical School that has been ongoing for 80 years. That study indicates that, not only do strong, long-term relationships lead to happiness, but they’re actually good for our health and well-being.

Rather than regurgitate the study, I’ll let Dr. Robert Waldinger, director of the study, do the talking. I’ve included two videos featuring Dr. Waldinger. The first was put together by After Skool, an artistic YouTube channel that puts animation to speeches, audiobooks, etc. The second is a TedTalk that Dr. Waldinger did in Boston in 2015.

The Secret to a Happy Life

What Makes a Good Life? Lessons From the Longest Study on Happiness

If you want to learn more about Dr. Waldinger’s work at Harvard, you can pick up his book, The Good Life.

Facebooktwitter

Want to be Happier? Maybe You Should Get Married

In 2016, after 28 years of marriage, I got divorced. As my marriage was unraveling, I had it in my mind that I would never get married again. I viewed myself as a rugged individualist, the kind of guy who could happily go through life on his own, without need of a romantic relationship, to be a fully realized, happy human being. I was wrong.

After my divorce, I made the conscious decision not to date until I was certain I was done grieving the loss of my marriage. I didn’t want to jump into another relationship just because I was lonely or unhappy. And to be certain, I was lonely and unhappy. Even so, I stayed strong.

Now, ten years after the breakup of my marriage, I realize how wrong I was about being a rugged individualist. I’m not. I yearn for a serious relationship. I didn’t see myself in those terms previously, but I now realize I’m a relationship guy. I like my life better when I’m in a relationship. I like me better when I’m in a relationship.

All of that is hard to admit, but what is even harder to admit is the reason I’d like to be in a relationship: I think it will make me happy. I know, the common advice is that you have to be happy being alone before you can be happy being with someone else. I previously bought into that logic. It’s one of the main reasons I avoided dating for so long after my divorce. But is it really true?

New research indicates that marriage (or a long-term relationship) is the source of most happy people’s happiness. Research done by professor emeritus Sam Peltzman of the University of Chicago indicates that married people are much happier than unmarried people.

In the research, Peltzman looked at several variables, including age, race, gender, education, geography, and marital status, and found that of all the variables, marital status was the only one where there was a big gap in happiness. Married people were 30% more likely to report that they were happy than their unmarried counterparts. And it didn’t matter if the unmarried were never married, divorced, or widowed, the statistics remained the same.

Sadly, the population of unmarried people—and by extension, unhappy people—is growing. In 1974, only 6% of people that reached the age of 40 were unmarried. Today, that figure has increased to 25%.

Peltzman’s research is not an outlier. Similar research conducted over the past several decades has come to the same conclusion. And while Peltzman didn’t study why married people are happier than unmarried people, other researchers have. That research falls into two categories. The first posits that marriage doesn’t make you happy. Instead, happy people tend to get married. This is the school of thought that says you have to learn to be happy alone before you can be happy with someone else.

In a way, this makes sense. People who are happy generally enjoy life and are attractive to a potential partner, who is also likely happy. They find each other and it’s only natural for them to decide to continue being happy together. Unhappy people, on the other hand, aren’t particularly enjoying life. And this glumness tends to repel potential mates, who aren’t interested in being brought down by the unhappy person’s gloomy outlook.

Professor Brienna Perelli-Harris, a professor at University of South Hampton in the UK is a believer in this first theory. Her research concludes that the happiest couples marry and that marriage doesn’t lead to their happiness. Unhappy people simply aren’t in the mood to commit to a lifelong relationship.

According to this theory, while Americans’ happiness level has fallen significantly since around 1980, they’ve stopped getting married. Fewer happy people, fewer weddings.

On the other hand, the second category believes that marriage leads to happiness. According to research conducted by Lyman Stone at the Institute for Family Studies, getting married boosts happiness levels for at least two years after the wedding, even controlling for reported pre-marriage happiness levels.

The argument made by people who believe in this second category is that “close, supportive, long-term relationships make you happy. Finding those types of relationships through friendships is possible, but it’s hard. People move away; they get busy. Most friends don’t buy houses or raise children jointly—the kinds of activities that glue people together and force them to cooperate. According to professor Andrew Cherlin of Johns Hopkins University, “Marriage is the usual way to find a durable, caring relationship that undoubtedly makes you happier than you would be if you didn’t have it.”

Another study, this one conducted in Europe in 2017, found that married people were happier after getting married than they were before, and that the happiness boost lasted for many years. Of those that participated in the study, those that said that their spouse was their best friend got nearly twice as much satisfaction from their marriage as those who didn’t feel that way about their significant other.

Do unmarried people who live together long-term rather than get married realize these same benefits? Almost, but not quite.

A study conducted in Germany found that cohabitating people realized about two-thirds of the happiness boost from living together as married people did. Why the difference? The study didn’t delve into that question, but some guesses can be made. It may be that married couples realize a slight happiness boost from making a legal, binding commitment that cohabitators don’t realize. The consequences of a marriage not working out tends to be much more serious than those of the breakup of a couple that was simply living together. It could also be as simple as those living together, while generally happy with one another, aren’t committed or in love enough to take the next step into marriage. Regardless, the important point is that there is still a happiness boost for cohabitating couples that, while not as big as for married couples, is still higher than the happiness level those couples reported prior to cohabitating.

What is it that makes cohabitating couples happier than their unmarried, not-living-together counterparts? John Helliwell of the University of British Columbia and co-author of the 2017 study explains it simply: “It’s the sharing of stuff…the legal thing (marriage) is probably the least important part of it.”

I fall into this second way of thinking. Looking back, even when my marriage was on the rocks, I was happier than I have been for most of the time that I’ve been single. Why would that be? These are just guesses, but I think it’s because I was part of a family (when my kids were still at home) and part of a team (with my wife). I felt like I belonged to something bigger than me, something that was important and, at least in theory, lasting. Being divorced, I often feel like what I do doesn’t matter to anyone but me. If I was more irresponsible, I might like that feeling. But the truth is, I enjoy being responsible to someone other than myself. The obligation makes me feel needed. It makes me happy.

In all honesty, I’m not hellbent to get married. I’m not opposed to it, but it’s not my goal. I simply want to be in a relationship, to share my life with another person. I want to love and be loved. I want to understand and be understood. I want someone to go on adventures with, to laugh with, cry with, and to be my better half. Maybe even my best friend. Why? Because I’m convinced it will make me happier.

Facebooktwitter

Re-Run: You Never Know

This post was originally published on August 5, 2021.

—————

Let’s call him Ryan. Truth is, I don’t know his real name. He was sitting on a median at a Florida intersection dressed in shorts and a threadbare T-shirt. He had a backpack sitting next to him, and he was holding a small sign, too small for everything he had written on it. The only word I could make out was “Homeless.” The rest was a mystery.

Ryan had short-cropped hair that looked like it had been cut by a non-professional, several days growth of beard, and a bearing that suggested defeat. He sat slumped over, with his head down, staring at his shoes, his feet tapping to a beat only he could hear. His sign was asking for help, but his body gave the impression that he had already given up.

I’d seen Ryan a few days earlier at the same intersection. On that day, the traffic signal turned green as I approached, so I only saw him for a moment. I’m ashamed to admit that my first thought when I saw him was, He’s a young, able-bodied guy. Why doesn’t he get a job instead of just begging?

The reason I’m ashamed of having that thought is that I always try to remember that you never know what people are going through, what hardships they’ve suffered or challenges they’ve faced. You truly never know. It’s easy to judge people. It’s harder to understand them and give them the benefit of the doubt. On that day, I took the easy way.

The second time I saw him, I had a red light, so I stopped a couple of cars back from Ryan. My heart was in a different place when I looked at him. I had no idea what his story was, but I was fairly certain it wasn’t a happy one. I waited for him to look up, but he just kept staring at his feet. I rolled the window down, and the heat rushed in. The day was oppressively hot, the sky devoid of clouds.

“Hey,” I yelled. I wanted to sound friendly, but be loud enough so he could hear me.

He looked up but didn’t move. It wasn’t clear if he saw who had called out to him. I held my arm out the window, a $20 bill in hand. Now he knew who had called out to him.

He stood, then walked toward me. Ryan was thin, his clothes baggy. His shorts, which hung below his knees, were dirty, and his T-shirt sweat-stained.

“How are you?” I asked, holding the money out to him.

He took off his sunglasses and stared at the $20 bill for a moment. His eyes brightened. A smile spread across his face revealing a couple of spaces where teeth used to be.

“Oh man, thanks. Thank you so much.” His voice was gruff, gravely, and he had a noticeable southern accent.

His eyes weren’t quite right. They didn’t move in unison. Was he mentally ill? Did he have some sort of disability?

“I hope this helps,” I said.

“This is great. Now I can get something to eat.” He was visibly excited. I wondered when he had last eaten.

The light turned green and traffic started to move. “Have a good day,” I said.

“Yeah, you too, man. Thank you.” Ryan looked again at the money, then stuffed it into his backpack. As I pulled away, he grabbed his sign and hoisted his backpack onto his shoulder, then walked toward the nearby Burger King.

“You never know,” I reminded myself. “You just never know.”

Facebooktwitter

Finding My Voice

Have you ever had a complete stranger change your life? It happened to me, and I want to share the story of how it happened. It’s a story I’ve never told, but one that I think is important.

The story begins in May 2020. We were in the midst of a pandemic that had killed tens of thousands. I knew it was going to get worse, but I had no idea how many lives it would eventually extinguish.

My emotions were raw. I had just ended a relationship a month earlier. I was hurt and lonely. The nightly update on the number of people who had died from Covid made matters even worse. People were dying, families were being destroyed, and all but the most essential businesses were being shut down. In addition, the country was being torn apart politically. The federal government seemed completely unable or unwilling to effectively address the pandemic, instead turning it into another battle in the country’s ongoing culture war. It was a difficult, depressing time.

Then Derek Chauvin, a white police officer in Minneapolis, snuffed out the life of a black man named George Floyd, for no reason other than that he could. The whole ugly episode was captured on video and was served up to a national television audience, setting off protests and counter protests across the country.

Our divided country became further divided, pitting those who were outraged by the murder of George Floyd against those that didn’t seem to care that a police officer had murdered yet another unarmed black man. I was solidly on the side of the former, but what could I do, sitting alone at home, emotionally frayed and angry? Then I read this poem:

What Does One Say?

What does one say,
when George Floyd is executed in broad daylight,
and a seventeen-year-old girl films him calling for breath and his dead mother,
and the world looks on as the officer tucks his hands in his pockets?

What does one say,
when the streets fill with righteous anger,
and the refrain of “no justice, no peace” rises like incense,
and the sounds of flash bangs crack the night sky?

What does one say,
when suddenly the church doors are flung open,
and the wounded stumble in to find help,
and the traumatized step in to find sanctuary?

What does one say,
when, for two nights, fires rage all around,
and fist-sized embers rain down,
and smoke covers the block like a blanket?

What does one say,
when the President uses tear gas against his own people,
and the Bible becomes little more than a prop,
and protesters—who are pleading for Black lives—are labeled “thugs” from the nation’s most prominent pulpit?

What does one say,
when a neighborhood, once rich with groceries, becomes a desert overnight,
and businesses burn to the ground,
and nonprofit partners return to find nothing but wily flames and ashes?

What does one say,
when white supremacists show up to incite violence,
and black hawks circle round and round,
and neighbors—ages twenty to ninety—set up lawn chairs on the street corners to keep watch?

What does one say,
when the refrain “all lives matter” is again wielded like a sword,
and some choose to attend to the ninety-nine at the expense of the one,
and white moderates look at the uprising and say that “they just aren’t doing it right”?

What does one say,
when the church—the last public building—becomes the epicenter of disaster recovery,
and smells not-so-faintly of tear gas and smoke and sour milk,
and any lingering desire to protect the structure for an unknown tomorrow is eclipsed by the want to use it today for love?

What does one say,
when tens of thousands from every nation and every creed show up in need of food and basic necessities,
and goods enough appear each day,
and volunteers descend from far and wide—each called to be present for this moment?

What does one say,
when violence and tenderness join hands,
and institutional racism and righteous anger come face-to-face,
and grief and love embrace,
and scarcity and abundance kiss?

What does one say?
Truth is, I’m not sure.
But what I know is this:
Black Lives Matter.
You are not alone.
And God is here, already at work building something new.

That poem was written by Ingrid Rasmussen. Ingrid is the Lead Pastor at Holy Trinity Lutheran Church in Minneapolis. Even now, when I re-read it, I get choked up just like I did when I read it for the first time on June 7, 2020. The poem brought all of my emotions—the hurt, the anger, the loneliness, the helplessness—to the surface.

I wanted to scream, to cry, to reach out, to make a difference, but I didn’t know how. I was just an older, middle-class, white guy. What did I have to say about the George Floyd murder or institutional racism that was valid and meaningful to anyone? I had lots of thoughts, lots of feelings, but no voice. In my experience, people like me just didn’t speak up. It was easier to stay quiet, to not make waves, to blend into the background. It was safer to keep opinions inside, to not ruffle any feathers, to not alienate friends or family.

Then I read Pastor Rasmussen’s poem and something inside me changed.

You see, Pastor Rassmussen is white, like me. She’s Lutheran, like me. I didn’t think people like us spoke up about racism and inequality. But if Pastor Rasmussen could speak up so powerfully and so clearly, then maybe I could too.

I began voicing my opinion on social media, the most convenient way to communicate, especially during a pandemic. I got into arguments, I lost some friends (both online and in real life), and I angered some people that thought I was being a radical for having the audacity to say that black people in the United States were entitled to equality and justice under the law.

I’m not sure what I expected when I decided to speak up. I sure didn’t set out to single-handedly change the world. Maybe I hoped that something I said would change a mind or two. Truthfully, I don’t know if anything I said made a difference. But I don’t think that was the point. I saw an injustice, and thanks to Pastor Ingrid Rasmussen, I found my voice and spoke up. What happened after that was and is out of my control. But until our country and our government treats all people with respect, equality, and justice—regardless of the color of their skin, the God they worship, the country they hail from, or the person they love–I’ll keep speaking up. It’s what each of us should do.

I still have never met or spoken to Pastor Rasmussen. Even so, I am so thankful to her for the courage, eloquence, and commitment to doing the right thing she displayed in the aftermath of the George Floyd murder.

Thank you, Pastor Rasmussen. Your words helped me find my voice, and I am eternally grateful.

Facebooktwitter

Is Donald Trump Disqualified From Being President?

The Union won the war, at least in theory. The Confederate Army was defeated, but the southern states carried on as if they hadn’t lost. Confederate officials continued to run things in the south, and black Americans, now freed from bondage—again, in theory—continued to be mistreated and denied their Constitutional rights. Lincoln had a plan to free the slaves, but how he planned to incorporate them into the larger society was murky at best. Then, he was assassinated.

The Union had been saved, but it continued to be torn apart. Southern states sent former Confederate officials—military leaders and politicians, including Vice-President of the Confederacy, Andrew Stephens—to Congress. It was an audacious move. The very people who had advocated for succession of the southern states and who had helped wage a bloody war against the United States, were now being sent to Washington to help lead the very country they had committed treason against. Something had to be done.

Republicans in Congress were outraged. They didn’t think that former Confederates should be anywhere near the seat of power. They responded by passing the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution, known colloquially as the “Reconstruction Amendments.”

Section three of the Fourteenth Amendment spoke directly to what was happening in Washington. Republicans in Congress wanted to make sure that no Confederate officials—military or political—could hold office in the federal or state governments. Section Three reads:

“No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”

Two esteemed law professors, William Baude of the University of Chicago School of Law and Michael Stokes Paulsen of the University of St. Thomas Law School, contend that the Fourteenth Amendment, Section Three prohibits Donald Trump from even being considered to hold any state or federal office. And according to these two professors, the call isn’t even close.

What makes Baude and Paulsen’s contention all the more credible is that both men are well-regarded conservatives, and both are members of the Federalist Society, the conservative group behind the Republican’s push to stack the federal judiciary with conservative jurists. It’s hard to dismiss Baude and Paulsen’s argument as part of the “liberal agenda” when both men are firmly entrenched in the conservative movement.

The two legal scholars published their findings in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review. They spent 126 pages making their case, but their conclusion comes down to this one paragraph:

“The bottom line is that Donald Trump both “engaged in” “insurrection or rebellion” and gave “aid or comfort” to others engaging in such conduct, within the original meaning of those terms as employed in Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment. If the public record is accurate, the case is not even close. He is no longer eligible to the office of Presidency, or any other state or federal office covered by the Constitution. All who are committed to the Constitution should take note and say so.”

Baude and Paulsen are not alone. Former federal judge and conservative legal scholar J. Michael Luttig, as well as progressive Harvard Law School professor Lawrence Tribe, recently published an article in The Atlantic agreeing with Baude and Paulsen. Their conclusion?

“The former president’s efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election, and the resulting attack on the U.S. Capitol, place him squarely within the ambit of the disqualification clause, and he is therefore ineligible to serve as president ever again. The most pressing constitutional question facing our country at this moment, then, is whether we will abide by this clear command of the Fourteenth Amendment’s disqualification clause.”

I have heard some commentators talk about the need to file a lawsuit to exclude Trump from the 2024 Presidential ballot. However, that may not be necessary. According to Baude, Paulsen, Luttig, and Tribe, Section Three is self-executing, and it is not dependent on Trump being convicted of any wrongdoing before it can be used.

In other words, it is up election officials in each state to decide whether or not Trump should be allowed on the ballot. Secretaries of State in California, Massachusetts, and Maine have already begun investigations into whether or not Trump is disqualified from running for the presidency. Lawsuits to compel election officials in Colorado and Minnesota to remove Trump from the ballot have been filed. Republican Presidential candidate Asa Hutchinson has called on Secretaries of State to refuse to include Trump on the ballot. The idea is beginning to gain steam.

Of course, there are credible people who disagree with Baude, et al. Conservative commentator and Never-Trumper David Frum thinks the argument that Trump is disqualified from running for President is a fantasy. Former Assistant Attorney General for the Southern District of New York, Preet Baharara, as well as former AGA and head of the Drug Enforcement Administration, Chuck Rosenberg–both well-respected legal thinkers–don’t believe Section Three applies to Trump’s situation. But at the moment, there seems to be more legal experts that agree with Baude, et. al than don’t.

An important point that sometimes gets overlooked is that the Constitution sets other qualifications for those wishing to become President. For instance, anyone running for President must be at least 35-years old and must be a natural born citizen of the United States. Section Three is not a punishment. It’s simply a qualification that a candidate must meet in order to be allowed on the ballot. It is up to the election officials in each state to determine if each candidate is qualified to run for president.

So, what can we expect to happen? In a word, lawsuits. If a Secretary of State in any state excludes Trump from the ballot, you can expect Trump to challenge the decision in court. If a Secretary of State decides to include Trump on the ballot, you can expect a lawsuit from citizens of that particular state contending that Trump is unqualified to be on the ballot. Eventually, the Supreme Court will need to weigh in. And what will they say?

If I had to guess, I think the majority of the Court will agree with Baude and Paulsen’s assessment. I know that may seem counterintuitive since six of the Justices are conservative, and three of those Justices were appointed by Trump himself. Even so, I could see six, maybe even seven, of the Justices agree that under Section Three of the 14th Amendment, Trump is not qualified to run for the Presidency. I don’t expect Thomas or Alito to disqualify Trump. Gorsuch could go either way. I expect Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Coney-Barrett to side with the three liberal Justices to find that Trump does not meet the Constitutional qualifications to run for the Presidency of the United States.

No matter how this shakes out, it’s an interesting situation with extremely high stakes. Assuming Republicans choose Trump to be their candidate through the primary election process, there will be a lot of pressure on the various secretaries of state to either include or exclude Trump from the ballot. Lawsuits are certain to ensue, and it will be up to the Supreme Court—if they agree to take on the case—to decide if Trump is allowed to run.

I think our crazy political environment is about to get even crazier.

Facebooktwitter

A Second American Civil War? It Could Happen

A little over a year ago, I published a post entitled Is the United States Heading Toward Civil War 2.0? In that post, I detailed how the United States was facing a different kind of civil war; a type of war carried out by individuals and small groups rather than state-sanctioned militaries. A type of war that is more akin to terrorism than traditional war, but will nonetheless pit citizen-against-citizen, and likely cost a lot of American lives before it is quelled.

In that post, I highlighted Dr. Barbara F. Walter, a professor of political science at the University of California-San Diego; a member of the Center for Systemic Peace, a think tank that researches and tracks civil wars around the world; and the author of How Civil Wars Start. Dr. Walter recently gave a Ted Talk explaining her research and the conclusions she has reached concerning the possibility of a civil war right here in the United States. Her explanation is fascinating, her conclusions are shocking, and her recommendations to remedy the mess we find ourselves in  and avoid a potential civil war give hope to an often hopeless situation.

The following video is only 13 minutes long, but it contains very important information that every American should know and understand. I encourage you to take the time to watch it.

 

Facebooktwitter

Today, We Remember Birmingham

Today marks the 60th anniversary of the bombing of the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Alabama and the death of four young black girls, Addie Mae Collins, Cynthia Wesley, Carole Robertson and Carol Denise McNair. Birmingham was no stranger to bombings. Between 1947 and 1965 there for fifty separate bombings of homes, businesses, and churches in the town that came to be known as “Bombingham.”

Even so, there was a sense of optimism in the summer of 1963. Earlier that year, Rev. Martin Luther King Jr’s. Southern Christian Leadership Conference led non-violent protests through the streets of Birmingham against segregation and discrimination. The protesters were met with violence from white supremacists like the Ku Klux Klan, as well as the Birmingham Police, led by Public Safety Commissioner Bull Connor. The police unleashed attack dogs on the protesters and sprayed them with fire hoses. The spectacle played out on TV, and is said to have sickened President John F. Kennedy, who just two months later introduced The Civil Rights Act of 1963. Despite the violence against them, the protest had been a success.

The optimism brought on by the introduction of The Civil Rights Act was short-lived. On September 15, 1963, four members of the United Klans of America planted fifteen sticks of dynamite, along with a timer, under the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church. The bomb went off as parishioners were gathering for the 11 o’clock service. A man driving past the church at the time of the blast was thrown completely out of his car. Another man, using a nearby pay phone, was blown through the door of a dry-cleaning business, still clutching the telephone’s ripped-off receiver in his hand.

The church itself was badly damaged, blowing out the back wall and leaving a massive crater where a large stone foundation and brick wall once stood. The four young girls, who had been changing into their Sunday clothes, were found in the basement. Cornell University Historian Kevin Kruse describes what happened next:

“As a crowd gathered to pull the girls’ bodies from the rubble of the church, a group of white teens with a Confederate flag and a sign saying “Go Back to Africa” taunted them. Some of African American teens responded by throwing stones, trying to chase them away from the scene. At this point, the police intervened and tried to apprehend some of the black teens. A sixteen-year-old black boy ran away from them, and was shot in the back by a shotgun blast. 

“At the same time, across town, another pair of white boys pulled up alongside two young black boys who were riding their bikes.  One of the white boys pulled out a pistol, put two bullets into a thirteen-year-old’s head and chest, and drove away.”

Today, sixty years after this horrendous and deadly violence, we see forces in our country that would like us to take a step back to those dark days. They want to reinstitute a caste system where African-Americans and other minorities are treated like second-class citizens. And they’re willing to use violence—just like the Ku Klux Klan and other white supremacists used in 1963—to get what they want.

It’s up to each of us to be diligent, to call out bigotry and hatred wherever and whenever it raises its ugly head. We’ve come too far and too much innocent blood has been spilled to ever go back. We must remember the lives lost on that fateful September day in 1963 and honor their memories by redoubling our efforts to end all forms of hatred and prejudice.

Facebooktwitter

How to Live to be 100 (or Older)

Dan Buettner is a National Geographic Fellow and a best-selling author who has devoted much of his life to understanding why some communities produce large numbers of people who live to be 100 years of age or older. These communities, known as Blue Zones, are spread throughout the world, and although they are disparate geographically, they seem to have several things in common that lead their residents to live to 100 and beyond.

Buettner is the host of Live to 100: The Secret of the Blue Zones, a Netflix multi-part documentary. The film follows Buettner as he travels the world from Japan to Sardinia to Costa Rica to California to meet people who are living unusually long lives, and to uncover the secrets to their longevity. At the end of the docuseries, Buettner reverse engineers what he has learned and implements those lessons in Albert Lea, MN to surprising results.

The docuseries is very interesting and informative. If you have Netflix, I encourage you to watch it. If not, here is a breakdown of what Buettner learns on his journey to Blue Zones and the secrets to long life that they hold:

  1. Move Naturally – Exercise is great, but what people who live to be 100 or more do is incorporate natural movement into their daily lives. What exactly do they do? Here are a few examples:
    1. Work by Hand – Doing things like washing the dishes, chopping wood, vacuuming around the house, or mowing the grass may not seem like exercise, but it keeps a body active, utilizing muscles in different ways and keeping those muscles toned and flexible.
    2. Gardening – One thing almost all of the Blue Zone communities have in common is that their residents often work in private gardens. Growing healthy food is one goal of this gardening, but the more important thing is they are outside, moving, bending, and stretching, keeping their bodies fit.
    3. Walking – Almost all Blue Zone communities encourage walking rather than driving. Residents walk to the grocery store, the café, or just around the neighborhood for exercise and relaxation.
  2. Outlook – This involves the way residents of Blue Zones view the world and how they see their place in it.
    1. Unwind – Blue Zone residents make time to relax and refresh. Doing things to de-stress is a priority, so they routinely take naps, meditate, and spend time in nature. They understand that recharging their batteries is every bit as important as carry out whatever duties and obligations fill their day.
    2. Faith – This could be religious faith or a spiritual practice. The type of religion doesn’t matter. One Blue Zone community is made up primarily of Buddhists while another (in Loma Linda, CA) is made up of Seventh Day Adventists. The important thing for Blue Zone residents is incorporating a religious or spiritual practice into their daily lives.
    3. Purpose – Having a purpose could involve having a higher calling, such as feeding the hungry or working to cure cancer, or it could simply be understanding your role in life. One of the Blue Zone communities in Costa Rica includes an unusually high number of shepherds. These people understand what they are supposed to be doing from the time they get up in the morning until they go to sleep at night. The sheep count on them, and they gladly and gratefully go about their work every day.
  3. Eat Wisely – Diet plays a huge role in how our bodies age. Blue Zone residents eat consciously, but they don’t go overboard. They enjoy treats now and then, but primarily eat a healthy diet.
    1. Plant-Based – Residents of Blue Zones eat far less meat than people who live in non-Blue Zones. For instance, for most people, meat makes up about 15% of their caloric intake. For Blue Zone residents, meat accounts for just 5% of their diet. Blue Zone residents are not strictly vegetarian or vegan, but they eat much less meat than other people.
    2. Wine – Wine is an important ingredient in the diet of Blue Zone residents. Consumed in moderation, often with meals, wine provides anti-oxidants and important minerals, especially when produced locally.
    3. Moderation – Blue Zone residents tend not to over-indulge in anything. They enjoy all things (healthy and not so healthy) in moderation. In one Blue Zone community, residents are taught to stop eating when they are 80% full. This reduces obesity and improves digestive function.
  4. Connect – We are social animals and its important to be around other people, interacting with them and enjoying their company. In our modern world, even as we live more closely, in more densely populated areas, loneliness has become an epidemic, draining not only our happiness, but decreasing our life expectancy.
    1. Family First – Blue Zone residents tend to live near family members, often in the same house. When residents get older, rather than being put in a nursing home, they either move in with family members or move closer to family members for emotional and physical support.
    2. Partnership – Our relationship with a spouse or significant other has a huge impact on every other part of our lives, including our longevity. A good, loving, happy, supportive marriage or partnership is often key to living longer and remaining healthy into our older years.
    3. Right Tribe – Residents of Blue Zones often surround themselves with friends and neighbors that make up their tribe. These friends and neighbors not only provide support and encouragement, but since they are often also going through the same experiences, they provide examples and opportunities to lend a hand.

I don’t know about you, but I want to live a long life, and I want to be alert, productive, and healthy right up until the end. I plan on incorporating the ideas outlined above into my life as I move forward. I’d like to get as much life as I can out of my old body. And if I can, I’d like to live well past 100. How about you?

Facebooktwitter

RE-RUN: Deep Dive: “Escape (The Pina Colada Song) by Rupert Holmes

This post was originally published on February 19, 2020.

——————–

Have you ever heard the song “Escape (The Pina Colada Song)” by Rupert Holmes? Everyone over the age of fifty or so has probably heard the song hundreds of times. It was a number one hit and was played incessantly on the radio in the late 1970s. If you’ve never heard the song, let me tell you about it.

The narrator of the song is tired of his relationship with his wife or girlfriend. It’s never clear if he’s married or just dating. He thinks his relationship is boring, so he scans the personal ads in the newspaper.

For younger readers, this might seem crazy, but back in the dark ages of the 1970s, there was no Match.com, eHarmony, or Tinder. If you were looking for a date, you took out a classified ad in the newspaper and hoped that someone would read it and respond. Crazy, I know. It’s amazing any of us are still alive.

***

Fun Fact: Rupert Holmes was born David Goldstein on February 24, 1947

***

Anyway, the guy in the song sees a personal ad that catches his eye. The ad reads:

“If you like Pina Coladas, and getting caught in the rain
If you’re not into yoga, if you have half a brain
If you like making love at midnight, in the dunes of the cape
I’m the love that you’ve looked for, write to me, and escape”

Who could blame a guy for falling for that kind of poetry and passion in just four lines? Our song narrator couldn’t. So, what did he do? Did he write to the Pina Colada women? No, he did not. This is one of the many things I don’t understand about the song. Maybe I just don’t remember how personal ads worked, but I thought the person posting the personal ad included a way to contact her, like a phone number or a mailbox provided by the newspaper. In her personal ad, she even says, in the last line, “write to me.”

But our songster doesn’t write to her. He places another personal ad. That seems risky, doesn’t it? How does he know the woman he is responding to would even see his ad? Talk about a long shot. I’m sorry, but color me skeptical.

Here’s what our narrator wrote in his personal ad:

“Yes, I like Pina Coladas, and getting caught in the rain
I’m not much into health food, I am into champagne
I’ve got to meet you by tomorrow noon, and cut through all this red tape
At a bar called O’Malley’s, where we’ll plan our escape”

Naturally, if the woman from the first personal ad didn’t see his personal ad, it wouldn’t be much of a song, would it? So, miracle of miracles, she sees our hero’s personal ad and shows up to O’Malley’s.

Before I move on, let me discuss O’Malley’s Bar. Have you ever heard of a high-class club called O’Malley’s? I know, this is all fictional. It didn’t really happen. But if you were going to make up a place to meet a make-believe date and you wanted to impress her, would you call it O’Malley’s? I wouldn’t. O’Malley’s sounds like a place you’d go with your mates after the rugby match, or a place that functioning alcoholics gather after work. It doesn’t sound like a swank place to take a date.

Sorry for the tangent. Back to the song.

So, our hero is waiting at O’Malley’s, and his date from the personal ad shows up. Here’s what happens:

“So I waited with high hopes, then she walked in the place
I knew her smile in an instant, I knew the curve of her face
It was my own lovely lady, and she said, ‘Oh, it’s you’
And we laughed for a moment, and I said, ‘I never knew’”

At this point, my BS meter is going nuts. Are you kidding me? They both just realized that their significant other is looking for a hook up, and they’re both fine with it? I don’t think that’s how relationships work. The relationship is so bad that they both want to cheat, but when they both get caught, they laugh it off and decide to stay together. I don’t think so.

Also, is it just the way I’m reading it, or does the wife/girlfriend sound horribly disappointed when she says “Oh, it’s you?” If I was the guy, I wouldn’t be so anxious to stay in this relationship. He should really watch his back. She doesn’t seem that into him.

***

Fun Fact: “Escape (The Pina Colada Song)” was the final #1 song of the 1970’s

***

The song was originally called simply “Escape.” There was no mention of pina coladas. In fact, originally, pina coladas weren’t even mentioned in the song. The original lyric was, “If you like Humphrey Bogart…” That’s right. Humphrey Bogart. Not quite as romantic or tropical as pina colada, is it? After Holmes wrote the song, he decided Humphrey Bogart wasn’t the feel he was looking for. He thought substituting an alcoholic drink might be the way to go, something tropical, and pina colada was one of the first drinks that came into his head. At that point, he had never had one and wasn’t sure what was in the drink, but it fit phonetically, so he went with it.

Although “Escape (The Pina Colada Song)” is the biggest hit of his career, Holmes didn’t view it that way when he wrote the song. He needed one song to finish an album, and wasn’t all that crazy about “Escape”. He just wanted to finish writing it, get it recorded, and go home.

So, while he was writing the lyrics, struggling to find a replacement word or phrase for “Humphrey Bogart,” the drummer from Holmes band got drunk. In fact, too drunk to play on the song. So, he was stuffed into a taxi and sent home, leaving Holmes to use a basic form of sampling for the drum track. It wasn’t ideal, but Holmes wasn’t too concerned. “Escape” was just a filler track so he could finish recording the album.

In a 2003 interview with SongFacts Magazine, Holmes said, “The original lyrics said, ‘If you like Humphrey Bogart and getting caught in the rain.’… As I was getting on mic I thought to myself, I’ve done so many movie references to Bogart and wide-screen cinema on my earlier albums, maybe I shouldn’t do one here. I thought, what can I substitute? Well, this woman wants an escape, like she wants to go on vacation to the islands. When you go on vacation to the islands, when you sit on the beach and someone asks you if you’d like a drink, you never order a Budweiser, you don’t have a beer. You’re on vacation, you want a drink in a hollowed-out pineapple with the flags of all nations and a parasol. If the drink is blue you’d be very happy. And a long straw. I thought, what are those escape drinks? Let’s see, there’s daiquiri, mai tai, piña colada… I wonder what a piña colada tastes like? I’ve never even had one. I thought that instead of singing, ‘If you like Humphrey Bogart,’ with the emphasis on like, I could start it a syllable earlier and go, ‘If you like piña-a coladas.’”

***

Fun Fact: Holmes brother, Richard, is an opera singer

***

When the album was finished, the studio decided they wanted to release “Escape” as a single. Holmes thought it was a bad idea, but didn’t fight them. The song floundered, never rising very high on the Billboard charts in the US. Then radio stations began reporting that they were being inundated with requests for “The Pina Colada Song.” Problem was, there was no song named “The Pina Colada Song”. The studio contacted Holmes and requested that the song be renamed. Holmes refused, but they came to a compromise: “Escape (The Pina Colada Song).” Once the song was renamed, it shot to number one.

Since then, “Escape (The Pina Colada Song)” has been featured in movies, such as Shrek, Guardians of the Galaxy, Grown Ups, and Like Father, as well as TV shows, such as Third Watch, The Goldbergs, Splitting Up Together, Living with Yourself, and It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia. Not bad for a song that was considered a throw away by its author.

Rupert Holmes is considered a bit of a one hit wonder by many people. However, that’s not only unfair, but incorrect. He had eight songs on the Billboard 100, including “Him,” that peaked at number six, and “Answering Machine,” which rose to number thirty-two. Also, before writing “Escape (The Pina Colada Song),” he wrote songs for other artists, including Dolly Parton, Gene Pitney, and The Drifters. Here’s a song he wrote for The Partridge Family:

And here’s one that was included in Barbara Streisand’s hit movie, A Star is Born:

After writing “Escape (The Pina Colada Song),” Holmes expanded his horizons, writing a mystery novel entitled Where the Truth Lies, which won the Edgar Award and was turned into a movie starring Kevin Bacon. He also penned a play called The Mystery of Edwin Drood (later known as Drood) that won a Tony Award. He also created and wrote the American Movies Classic TV show Remember WENN.

Here is Holmes explaining the creation of “Escape (The Pina Colada Song),” as well as doing the song live:

Facebooktwitter